Liner v. Goord

March 14, 2006

JOSHUA LINER, PLAINTIFF,v.GLENN GOORD, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: David G. Larimer United States District Judge

ORDER

On March 10, 2006, Joshua Liner ("Liner"), proceeding pro se, requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal from a jury verdict, returned February 16, 2006, of No Cause of Action on his civil rights claim brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Judgment was entered on February 16, 2006.

The motion must be denied. Although Liner has submitted what appears to be a record of his current inmate account, this conflicts with what Liner said in open court to the jury when he made his pro se closing argument on February 13, 2006. During that argument in attempting to explain that his case was not about money, Liner said "I don't need no more [money]. I have $23,000 in my account when I started, $23,000 in my account. It cost me $400 to prosecute these things, $400." (Trial Transcript).

Therefore, because Liner stated in open court to the jury less than a month ago that he had $23,000 in his account, and because Liner did not prosecute these cases in the district court, but paid the full filing fees of $405 for this action, and another 98-CV-6343, plaintiff Joshua Liner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. #90) is denied.

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.